And then, a few things about this next class that we want to begin, that is this kind of junior seminar on monastic theology. And I've got a couple of articles here that I haven't, I've just copied them off and haven't straightened out the pages. One is Hauser's article on the great currents of Eastern spirituality. And the other one is the first, I guess it's a preface, a preface to Bouyer's History of Christian Spirituality. It's just the first little bit and he explains what he's setting out to do and what spirituality is and whether you can have a history of it and whether you can have different spiritualities, all of these questions. And he has a kind of masterful way of treating those things. He and Hauser, as a matter of fact, are two masters in this area. Hauser is treating the early spiritualities, and even though his article is older, it's still valid. And Bouyer is setting out to write a history of the same period, and I didn't want to do

[01:13]

it in my lifetime. What we want to do is, starting out from Baratheas, look at some of the other sort of fixed points in that constellation of early spiritualities, then move forward into our own time and do a similar thing. Try to locate those same fixed points, those same points of orientation, and then find out what really needs to be in a monastic spirituality or a monastic theology today. And of course, in the back of our minds we have a couple of contemporary figures, especially Merton, because Merton is the most comprehensive of our contemporary monastic theologians. So, I'll just hand this to somebody around me, or maybe you could get some help and just separate these out for a bit. One is about ten pages and the other is only three pages. I made ten of them, one, two, three. And as I say, this other course, at least to begin with, everybody is welcome.

[02:18]

It's specifically for the Center for the Best, so that we ask to contribute more actively. We'll have to decide whether we want to do it once a week as we've been doing this for an hour, or something like every two weeks for two hours. If we get to where everybody is contributing, or we're having a discussion, we may not want to cut it off in an hour. It's hard to do, and it's hard to get very much time in one hour from the operating room. Before we do anything else, we can probably take a look at these two papers. We might do that next time. Also, just to get a kind of basic presentation. Let's take a look at these maxims of Garapaeus. I don't know exactly where they came from. They were called from the various discourses, the kind of condensations, distillations,

[03:23]

crystallizations of his thought. So it's useful to look at them at the end, with some attention to the translation also here. When you have something as concise as these things are, every word counts. So if a word isn't right, it can upset the whole thing. Number one, it's impossible for a man who sticks to his own judgment and his own idea to submit himself and follow the good of his neighbor. Not just promote the good of his neighbor, but follow the good of his neighbor. Now, do you see the connection between following the good of his neighbor? If we're sticking to our own judgment and our own idea, we're also seeking our own good. In other words, it's an internal cycle. So we're seeking our own good, and how can we follow the good of our neighbor? How can we follow a good beyond our own? As a matter of fact, how can we follow God's will? Somehow, in looking through these and trying to boil them down into one statement, it seems to me that you can really boil down Garapaeus along this line, the line of these maxims, into this. The renunciation of our own judgment, our own justice, and our own will.

[04:30]

That's this doctrine. Now, it so happens that this is in a particular context. And what context is it? It's not the solitary context. It's the context of community, meaning of obedience and of fraternal relations. And he talks more about the fraternal relations than he does about the obedience. Now, here's where we get that trick of monastic theology, that if you don't look out, it comes out very negative. When we talk about the renunciation of our own judgment, renunciation of our own justice, renunciation of our own will, remember those three words that he had earlier on? I was trying to locate them before, but I couldn't find which to describe. It was around four parts or something. It sounds like we could turn ourselves into ninis, or simply renounce our own humanity, renounce our own person. So the monastic part of this, the specifically monastic part, seems to be the renunciation. But we forget that it's a life, it's a monastic life. And it's like pruning, it's like pruning an existing tree. Now, the trouble with monasticism and its literature is

[05:32]

that you talk all the time about the pruning, and you don't talk about the tree very often. The tree is life, the tree is the creature of the Holy Spirit, there's a peace and joy and love and all those good things. The tree is also understanding, the tree is wisdom, all these things. But most of the monastic writers tend to talk about the pruning only. They tend to talk about the cutting back. So we forget the tree, we don't see the tree that much. And that's the risk also with our peace, the way it comes on so heavy all the time. So when you get this literature that's detached from the life itself, if you could be in the life itself, you'd probably experience something quite different. And that continual preaching of renunciation. Renunciation is the pruning in order that more life may be produced, in order that more fruit may be produced. But the fruit comes of itself if the pruning is done. And that's the theory, that's the monastic theory. But sometimes the monks forget that pruning isn't enough. You've got to water the tree. You've got to do other things to it. In the first place, the tree's got to be planted. And that's where it comes back to the scriptures, to find the tree itself.

[06:35]

To find the tree in the Word of God, you can read about the pruning in the monastic products. Number two, because we all have passions, we absolutely ought not to have... Now, he puts complete before faith, but I didn't check this just now, but I put this in the book. Because we all have passions, we ought absolutely not to have faith in our own heart, for a crooked rule makes the straight crooked. Now, here he's saying the same thing in another language, in another metaphor. What does faith in our own heart mean? It means to trust your own feelings, right? To trust your own feelings, your own impulse, your own desire. Now, here he's talking about heart in terms of feeling, but a judgment which would follow feeling. Okay? Now, as Peter pointed out in his paper, if you just go either against feeling or just go for feeling, you need a feeling of your own conscience. You're not listening to a voice of your own conscience.

[07:36]

You can get into trouble. But here he's telling you, I'm not trusting the feeling. Similarly, there can be positive feelings that we can have. A feeling of conscience, which is really scrupulosity. A crooked rule makes the straight crooked. So, he's talking about our vision itself being distorted, our consciousness itself is distorted. And so, once again, if we trust it, the first one's about sticking to our own judgment. The second is about having faith in our own heart, that is, our own feelings, okay? So, from judgment to feeling. Three, it's no great thing not to judge and to be sympathetic to someone who's in trouble and falls down before you. Okay, when the other person is sort of pathetic, or when the other person is not a threat, or when we're not involved, we're not in danger. But it's a great thing not to judge or to strike back when someone, on account of his own passion, speaks against you. And not to disagree when he is honored more than you are with the one who is honored more than you are.

[08:39]

So, I think it's the same person. The translation doesn't catch it, and it's kind of loose and, you know. When the sin is against you, when it's your foot that's stepped on, that's when it's hard not to judge. And when the very person who has done it is preferred to you, then it's hard not to judge, because you're involved. Number four sounds just like Maximus' investment. That is, the passions and our attachments are the source of the positive passions, let me call them that, the desires are the source of the problems of anger. Number five sounds like the prayer of St. Francis. Do not ask for love from your neighbor, for if you ask and he does not respond, you will be troubled. There's a word in this one. Instead, show your love for your neighbor,

[09:40]

and you will be addressed, and so you will bring your neighbor to life. That's marvelous. It also sounds like Dominic Cross. And it's that elementary principle, once again, there's a kind of a metaphysics underneath all of this. A very simple, something that's moving there underneath. Not a mechanics, but something very simple. A kind of physics, a metaphysics of God and man. The idea that love from outside isn't really going to help you, and if you depend on it, you're weakening instead of strengthening. If you depend on it, you are unable to grow into what you're supposed to become, therefore you're unable really to progress. You aren't able to do the monastic life if you're depending on somebody else's love. That's the principle. So you have to find it inside of yourself. There are a lot of sayings of Jesus that are like that. From the ones about, turn the other cheek and walk two miles with the one hand. Don't return hatred for hatred, or love those who hate you.

[10:43]

He didn't say love those who love you. He says everybody can do that. Love those who hate you, and then something is growing in you. And he always relates it to the Father. He says, well then, the Father will reward you. Then you'll know the Father. But because your Father in heaven is perfect, that's why you have to be that way. So in some way, that's the thing that brings life from the Father into us, and in some way makes us fathers. Now, how does that happen? I remember Father Lombardi one time saying that what we have to develop is the heart of a father. The Christian is supposed to be, in some way, the father of the world, the mother of the world, if you like. The idea is for the heart that gives, the heart which is not a black hole but a spring, a fountain, a sun, which flows into the world. So somehow by catching this direction of the flow of being, of the flow of the life of God in this way, not sucking love in, but giving love out, we become the image of God. We become fathers. I seem to think about not being dependent on God's love,

[11:44]

but is it true to say that God's love doesn't really strengthen you? It seems like the genuine love of someone else does really strengthen a person. It really does, yes. It really does. How can we get that together? There's more than one kind of love. And also there's more than one point in our life. So you can have a love which is selfish on both sides, which is like a cup of coffee, which makes you feel good for a little while, but it's addictive and it's not really strengthening in any way. Now even that can help us over a bump, just like a cup of coffee can help you when you're really down, when you're really weak. But it's not like it's going to stay with you, and it's draining something that's in you. It's draining your resources instead of making you grow, instead of strengthening you. Then there are different phases in our life, and there are things that we need for a boost to get up on the next step of the ladder, on the next step of the stairs. And then when we're together, our inner motor is able to take over, okay? So there's a kind of inductive love,

[12:45]

the love of a mother, which draws us up to the position where we can be self-operating. But in addition to this, he's ignoring something now, isn't he? Because he's talking about the monastic dimension, which is this particular way of attacking. But isn't there another way of looking at the whole thing, in which the community itself is a flow of love? The community itself is a flow of love, and by opening ourselves to that flow of love, which also is outside us as well as inside us, we somehow find our life, we find our strength. But even there, we find it... If you ask people who have lived in communities like households, in our charismatic communities, you've got people in the community who are only consumers of love, and not suppliers, okay? Then you've got other people who are sort of pumping love and strength and this goodness into the community all the time. And other people who just soak it up, who just suck it in and devour it.

[13:46]

So even from that point of view, there are two ways of relating. But here there's a big danger, because the danger of this kind of one-track monastic view is that you shut out the grace of God when it comes to you to do somebody, and you don't recognize the beauty of love when it comes to you to do it to somebody. If an angel comes to you and says, I'm sorry, I'm busy with my own demonstration. I haven't got room. You're just another character on whom I can exercise my virtue. Instead, show your love for your neighbor, then you will be blessed. Right, and so you'll be. That's right. That's right. That's right.

[14:47]

Everybody is supposed to become a nurturer. Even though we all have the odd needs and wants, and so we support one another, but the idea is to get everybody to the adult state where they're producing this love and bringing it into the world, not just in the community, but bringing it into the world, instead of just consuming it. Because I think there are a lot of people who are seeking community because they're hungry for love, but they're not ready to give it. And it's not only love, it turns out, in other words, and it turns out in terms of work, it turns out in terms of all kinds of things where generosity is in question, those manifestations of expression. You kind of nullify the first part, because instead, show your love for your neighbor, then you will be blessed, and so you will bring your neighbor to love. So your neighbor is receiving love from outside himself in you, and you're going to be receiving it outside from some other neighbor. So all that's important.

[15:48]

It's coming from outside, and yet the effort is always towards, what would you call it, reciprocating. Just like the effort towards God's grace, God's grace is not just a circuit output to respond, to reciprocate. The same way this love comes from outside, which is really God's love, through other people. That's right, that's right. Sort of the ideal, I suppose, would be to be poor, you know, and to be continually trying to give love, but continually finding oneself sort of rescued or brought to life by the love that comes from outside, directly from God and directly from others. I'm just wondering, I have one question for you. That's right.

[17:00]

That's right. It's true. It's harder to see it as love, really, in a male community. Love is unnatural to a woman. And for a man, it's likely to be the kind of effort which doesn't feel like love when he's doing it, and it doesn't look like love when he does it. I hear you. A lot of the poverty of the monastic community comes from that. It's very true. You find some people in the community, however, who do have a very big affective need, okay, and who continually seek you in the male community.

[18:22]

And they have... Well, it's like a feminine quality in them, you know, in people in a male community. The feminine quality in men which makes them seek for that affectivity, that affection from another man. And often they're very troubled people. I think it's something that a person has to sort of grow out of, that a man has to grow out of. It's a hard part of the monastic life. Six. If a man is doing something according to God, trial of some kind will come upon him. For trial and temptation, either proceed or follow all good. Neither is it sure the thing is happening according to God, unless it is proved by trial and temptation. My goodness. That seems to be true. It's true for the individual when he responds to a vocation, and all kinds of things happen to him that never happened before. He was daily sinning. It's true also for projects and monastic foundations and things. Troubles just fall on him. Nothing is so conducive to unity as rejoicing about the same things

[19:28]

and holding on to the same purpose. It seems obvious, but it's one of those obvious things which really repay reflection, I think. It's called concord, you know. Concord is being of the same heart. It's one of those things which is so hard to listen to, like what St. John said when he was an old man, because it's so ordinary. Now, he's talking about a kind of science of the will here, you know. Evagrius has got his science of the intellect and science of the passions, and also hidden in it is the science of the will, but on the surface it's the science of the intellect. Dorotheus is the scientist of the will, I believe. That's the other thing about all of these things if you put them in words. It's the consciousness, but it's expressed in the mental world. And so here it's a question of managing to have somehow the same will as your brother. If that's so, then other things can fall into line, but if there's a basic disagreement in the will,

[20:29]

then continually things will be pulling apart. Number eight is about accepting favors from people, even small favors. That's something that's pointed out to us, you know. Nowadays, rather often, it's harder to receive than to hear sometimes. Especially for a man. Number nine. If I have to get something done, or... It's a loose translation. It's something like this. In anything that concerns me, or in anything that I get involved with, this translation seems to be legitimate. If he has to get something done. If he's got to do it with his neighbor's advice, he might get to do it when it goes wrong. That's a pretty extreme statement. That's a pretty extreme statement. It's like this statement of the father that said, Well, I'd rather fail in humility than succeed and be vain about it, or be satisfied with myself. I don't know how much of this was intended.

[21:31]

If everybody felt this way, it would be pretty rough. The plumbing wouldn't work. The toilet's already gone flush. It would be like this. You flush the whole thing. Number ten. It's a good thing on every occasion to concede ourselves a little less than we need. Not so much prepare closely. Give ourselves a little less than we need because it's not good for us to be completely satisfied in everything. Okay, but is there a space between your need and complete satisfaction? That's a question. It's one question. A real need is a real need, okay? And they can be pushed around a little. They may be a little bit flexible, but basically they're the same. Complete satisfaction is something else. It's like St. Ronald said, Well, you eat something every day, you always feel a little hungry. Another motto which is impressive but also hard to correspond to given the uncertainty of our feelings. The fact that our feelings and our real needs

[22:34]

don't relate very precisely. Number eleven. In all things that come upon me, I never desire to conduct myself according to human wisdom. All right? But always act with the little power I have. At the same time, leave it all to God. Number twelve. He who does not have a will of his own, okay? This is one of the key things here, one of these sort of Gnostic sayings. He who doesn't have a will of his own always does what he wills. That's the paradox. If your will is completely abandoned, if you've completely renounced it, you don't have any will, then everything that happens is just what you will. Merton says that sometimes. For externally, he does not get his own way, but whatever happens, no matter what it is, it just gives him quiet satisfaction, and he discovers for himself that he has what he wants. For he does not want things to happen as he wishes, he wants things to have happen as they happen.

[23:37]

That's that deeper freedom that Merton writes about in an article on the ascetic life, on the fasting and eating. And we have to be careful with this, because our will is a delicate thing. And some people's wills are not sufficiently developed. So if they go about systematically frustrating their wills, and trying not to want anything, they can crush themselves, but rather they can prevent their will, their real self, from ever coming forth. We have to learn how to will, and then we have to learn how to will with complete openness, like two stages. And often it's a hard job, and a long job, really, to find our will, and where it is. So we shouldn't scuttle it too quickly. But that's a beautiful thing. It's a beautiful thing. The original is much more concise than the way he's got it. It's one of those... I've agreed on some of his things. Number thirteen is real practical wisdom. Don't correct your brother at the moment when he's doing something wrong,

[24:38]

or, for the sake of getting... for a vindictive reason at any other time, but don't correct somebody at the moment when he's doing something wrong. Why is that? Yeah, it's like... There's violence in correcting somebody when he's doing something wrong, because his will, he's in movement, and it's like stopping him like that, okay? Or confronting him with a violent... the need for a violent turnabout or change, or stopping at that point. It's like standing in front of him and blocking him or something like that, morally, not physically. And that's violent. So he says, wait. Wait until he's in a position where he can stand back from his own action and look at it along with you, okay? Whereas in that moment, he's totally in his action, presumably. He's passionate. He'll be passionate about it. So it will be an angry flare of the violence that's there. Who?

[25:42]

Come and whack him when he least expects it. What did you do that for? It's because you're evil. That's true. The other thing is, you know, you can't wait too long. In other words... Not at the moment, because it's too passionate at the moment, or it's too violent. But also, if they wait too long, then they don't realize the connection, and it seems like an arbitrary thing. Or you can say, well, I haven't heard of you. I didn't want to say anything at the time. You can really build up a passionate empathy by making it up for anybody that's there. That's right. You can do a much better job than that. Fourteen. Love according to God is more powerful than natural affection.

[26:55]

But there's something to think about. There's something to meditate on, because we have to meditate on that truth. If we're going to be able to act on it, we're going to be able to do it. I think it's insane that the passion of Eros, when it's converted into the love of God, when it's picked up in the Holy Spirit, is much stronger than it was when it was simply on a fleshly level, than it was simply on its ordinary level. Number fifteen. He seems to be talking about dubious jokes, practical jokes. I didn't check the original, but I know that is not quite what he's trying to say. Sixteen. A man ought to want to be free from vice, not because he's bothered by it, but because he hates it. What does that mean? It's the same thing about, remember when he was talking about doing acts of virtue with knowledge? So with knowledge means that you do it because of love of the thing itself, not because of some extensive fruit,

[27:55]

or not because it's more pleasant for you, or it's going to get you what you want. But somehow there's a kind of naturality with the act, with the good. It's Gandhi. The truth for its own sake, regardless of the fruits. And that has to be understood in that way. Same thing with respect to evil. We should have a con-natural hatred for evil. Seventeen. It's impossible for you to be angry with someone unless your heart is first lifted up against him, unless you despise him, and esteem yourself superior to him. Is that true? Is there that kind of judgment when you're angry against somebody? There can be an instinctive anger.

[29:00]

If somebody steps on your foot, if somebody steps on your foot hard, you're angry, right? And it's almost an undirected anger. It's not even personal. Or it may be immediately personal. It's a kind of passionate, flash, instinctive. But it doesn't seem to contain that judgment. But the anger itself blocks out your respect for that person at that moment. But when you're angry, kind of resolutely mad at somebody, does it mean that you despise him, that you put yourself superior to him? There's a kind of anger that does, OK, but probably not. And you're kind of involved in a relationship where you have to put yourself first, superior to your husband. Well, he's talking about being angry with somebody, OK? You consider the son and the father, you know, the son who feels that his father's unjust to treat him badly, and he's angry with his father.

[30:00]

But he's putting himself down sometimes, rather than his father, you know? You know what I mean? There's a kind of sense of inferiority. He's making it sound as if it were rational, and as if you have to condemn somebody or despise somebody, right? However... Let's talk about conceiving a grudge against somebody that you've moved over for a length of time and you resent about it. Grudge against this person, and then you develop this grudge and this violence and this insecurity. I don't think that's a good thing. And it's a question of a sense of self-righteousness coming into it. And if I'm right, then he's wrong. And if I'm right and he's wrong, there's a kind of judgment and a kind of maybe contempt of speech in there. It's certainly not an all-in.

[31:06]

Anger does cut itself from seeing the other person as he is and from appreciating him, respecting him as he is. The anger broughts out the respect that we would ordinarily have for him. But sometimes the anger itself is a measure of respect almost, because sometimes the people that we despise can't really make us angry, you know? If you don't have respect for a person, sometimes it's hard to get rid of them. Because it's not threatening enough. If he insults you, if he doesn't think well of you, even if he does something to you, you can pardon it because you say, well, he doesn't know any better. And if it's somebody you really respect and admire so much that your own self-esteem is attached to him in some way, then maybe there's more danger then. And your anger almost is trying to fight out of the hurt and the sense of inferiority that's put on you. And it hurts you. Eighteen. This is connected with thirteen. If when somebody's rebuked or corrected he's roused to anger,

[32:09]

it's a sign that he willingly gives way to it, that is, to the passion. If he gets mad when he's rebuked or corrected, it means that he's really into what he's doing. Bearing a rebuke or correction without being put out is a sign that man gave way... This is the mistake here, in fact. He gave way to his passion through weakness or ignorance. So he disowns it himself when he reflects, but in the first case he's totally in it. And so it's the man himself that you're condemning, in some way, or rebuking. The next three are not in Sanskrit. I don't know where I really got them. I didn't look in the introduction this week. The list of maxims in the original stops for a minute or two. It's the science of the will. How to purify your will by letting go of it.

[33:11]

And the will includes, wraps up within it, that self-judgment, one's own judgment, and one's own righteousness. The three are all combined, which is also a sense of one's own identity, because one's righteousness is what one is hanging on to for identity. In the old days, when people really evaluated themselves in religious terms, they didn't talk about identity, they talked about justice, they talked about whether you were going to be saved or not, whether you were OK, whether you were in a state of grace. Nowadays it's a question of OK-ness, or self-image, or identity. You see, it's been transposed into secular terms. And at the same time, the bottom has been cut out from under it, because God isn't there anymore. So it becomes kind of a difficult struggle to have a foundation under your house. It means that there couldn't be identity, or justice, judgment, or consciousness, and will, or desire, or resolution. And will is the key. I don't understand the last sentence. That's what I've addressed recently,

[34:14]

so I don't know. Oh, yeah, it's wrong, I'm sure. I couldn't find the original, but I'm sure it's wrong. He who hates irritating people hates tantrums. If you look on the top of page 240, you'll find something very similar. And I think it's the same saying, basically. Pray earnestly for those who, as true healers, abuse you. He who flees from those who revoke him flees from meekness. OK? So I'm sure it says something like this. He who runs away from distressing people runs away from rest and trust. Must be. That's number 21 on 253. Otherwise it's just a pure condemnation. It'd be nice if a lot of people believed that. He who runs away from distressing people runs away to rest and trust. And those are the people of God that I relate to. Well, but there's something in the Bible that's in there about steering clear of fools. Is that true? There is.

[35:16]

In the Bible there is. OK, in the Old Testament. But Dorothea's doctrine is very strongly in that other direction. Sort of heading right into this kind of distress, this kind of contradiction. That's right. That's right. You don't have to seek it out. But the point is not to run away. It's as if God sends things. He sends your healers to you in the shape of these distressing people so you shouldn't run away. That's right. Yeah, and it depends on the kind of distress too. Because of all kinds of distress, but what he means, I think, is like abuse. You know, or people who are difficult people. Right? And even in the world we have to be careful about running away

[36:17]

from difficult people. People that are, you know, unpleasant for us. Because there's a lot of growth related to them, sticking to them. Let's start reading our pictures. Peter, do you want to read yours? I like your video. You have very good focus. Very specific. Third one. This idea of consciousness as a natural law

[37:35]

can be taken from Romans. There's also a statement from Fowler which seems to support it. Quote, The spirit of man is a ramp of the world, searching all of the innermost parts. End quote. It is within the power of man to obey the stimulus which can be directed through sin. Through the repetition of sin in the process, we expose the level of silence that occurs. So that, at last, one ceases to hear a response. Then it seems as though the consciousness disappears, but it is still there beneath the surface and can never be destroyed, because it is something divinely crafted in man. Dorotheus does not show in great detail about the way the consciousness resides in man, how it is related to the soul, etc. But a practical description of how it functions is very true for life. Even today, when we meet people who may be so involved in sin that they say they no longer know the goodness

[38:36]

that came right from God. One should not neglect the properties of consciousness in making oneself aware of it, not even in the smallest matter, because by doing so, one comes to the level in which it is fine to be aware of it and destroys one's consciousness in the process. According to Dorotheus, there are no three levels. It takes an all-encompassing review of morality. Right and wrong begin from the small things and advance to the greater things. This seems to be a well-established principle of the spiritual life, for as soon as involved, it is important to be on the alert for even the slightest spiritual offense. This is part of the theme of constant readiness that one finds everywhere in Dorotheus. There are three particular areas where one should be watchful of consciousness. With regard to God, all of his interior thoughts should be carefully scrutinized. With regard to one's neighbor, one should never do anything

[39:36]

to impede, learn, gesture, or look at any trouble or conflict. With regard to material things, one should be careful and prudent in their duties. In treating the material things, Dorotheus goes into more detail and gives more concrete examples of the attitude he would like to instill. Most of the examples seem to reveal a high regard for material properties. There is also something of a circumspection in the use of material objects, which is so evident in the insertion of St. Henry, to treat the material goods in one thing as though they were the sacred vessels of life. However, one assumes that consciousness has to do with what is simple and what is not. Dorotheus, in researching the point, goes too far, and he applies it to the use of material things in such a minute detail, such as how often to watch for the truth. One should not be concerned about such minute matters when one is thinking to speak about the truth.

[40:37]

Dorotheus calls consciousness the adversary, because it opposes man's evil desires and refuses them. It sounds as if one has an inferior aim, the adversary of man, as if man was spiritual in himself. There is also a certain way of speaking that seems to imply that man has nothing but evil impulses which need to be constantly approached. This is an unfortunately one-sided way of speaking. How about speaking in conscious, such as man encourages one on to do good things, and to avoid insubordination? How about speaking in good impulses, as it should be listened to, instead of always accenting the negative? Dorotheus automatically assumes that the voice of consciousness really is the voice of consciousness, and that it is always right to give it counsel. The issue also seems too simplistic, given our modern knowledge of human psychology of neurosis, unconscious motivation, and so forth.

[41:43]

One must ask whether the inner voice is true consciousness, and whether it is really true. For if it is not, then the world should be deserted and unreserved. However, to be fair, Dorotheus, being a professional, I think there's too many people in the world who feel as if they can observe the human behavior, and have to know something about some of these things, even if you chose not to write anything. Question from the audience. It's like there's a school of scrupulous sometimes, they're trying to teach you to be scrupulous.

[42:57]

Something. I wonder why that is. Do you suppose that people didn't have a frail conscience or a frail psychology the way they have nowadays? Or was it simply that they didn't have a memory? I don't know when you first get, when you first hear about scrupulous. See, scrupulosity is an over-achieved conscience or a false conscience by which you begin to be very attentive to little things, thinking that your whole salvation, any mistake can be a sin. And you rarely hear the Fathers cautioning you against that, telling you to be magnanimous to the great heart of the poor Jehovah and not worry about sin. Yes, but I don't know. But it is virtue. If you think you know this, you do.

[44:00]

But you don't. Even virtue. You do. I guess I'm not allowed. I don't know. But if you believe that God is your name, then you needn't be scrupulous sometimes. Do you agree with what I'm saying? It may be because you have no more time to think about it. So there is no debate about it. It's always a false conscience. You're thinking about it. Some of you start thinking about it. Some of you start asking about it. Some of you don't. If you read the Desert Fathers, you get the notion that some of them were very scrupulous, in the sense that there's a fear of God that's like an umbrella over them. And that they didn't have that... Well, some of them, like on their deathbed, talking from the point of view of fear, they don't know...

[45:00]

But some of them, like Anthony, you see that conference where he says, I no longer fear God, I love Him. But that's something else. It sounds like a whole different story. But I don't remember cases in which some of the wiser ones, you get that, like Pullman, that they're pushing him up towards... Like he says, if a man really repents, he can be fully reconciled in one day, or in three days, or something like that. But the others are talking about years of penance. Where did they get the idea of fear? See, one theory could be that their psychology, their inner life was not developed in a way, in a complicated way that ours is. And they weren't so subjective,

[46:03]

or weren't so introverted, so that they didn't have a chance, really, to fold over inside that way, and get fixed on that. You get sickly scrupulous without ministry, in the way that we're able to do. Especially if he repents more about himself. There's a kind of modern Western man who's probably more introspective and subjective than anybody else's, I think. A really, really wonderful man, I think. And there seems to have been a robustness even about their introspection, whereby they could examine their thoughts and so on without falling into it. The spirit that's in Saint Paul

[47:10]

seems to move in the opposite direction, towards an expansiveness, you know. And especially when you're talking about needing a drink and things like that, he doesn't say that you can send. It's as if he doesn't want you to be concerned with those things. Because those belong to the law. And he's saying the spirit sets you free. So, it's as if he's not so afraid of sin as some other people. He's afraid of heavy sin, of deliberate sin, of mortal sin. But he's not really afraid of those. It's as if there weren't any of those little offenses. It's either you belong to God, or you're a sinner, or you're way into something. If you get that boundary wrong, he's not as sensitive to you. Anyway, that's a question we'll run into again. Hopefully tomorrow. Questioner asks a question in Spanish.

[48:12]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ